AMAR SARDARversusTHE STATE OF WEST BENGAL

        [2024] 12 S.C.R. 1267 : 2024 INSC 1040

                       Amar Sardar
                             v.
                 The State of West Bengal
             (Criminal Appeal No. 5234 of 2024)
                      12 December 2024
              [B.V. Nagarathna and
         Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh, JJ.]


                    Issue for Consideration
Whether the High Court was justified in affirming the judgment of
conviction and sentence passed by the Fast Track Court.

                           Headnotes†
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – s.374 – Whether High Court
considered the evidence on record independently thereby
sustaining the conviction granted by the Fast Track Court:
Held: While hearing the appeals under Section 374(2) of the Code of
Criminal Procedure, 1973, the High Court is exercising its appellate
jurisdiction – It is the duty of an appellate court to independently
evaluate the evidence presented and determine whether such
evidence is credible – High Court must further assess whether the
prosecution has established its case beyond reasonable doubt,
even if the evidence is deemed reliable – The High Court must
be convinced beyond all reasonable doubt that the prosecution's
case is substantially true and that the guilt of the accused has
been conclusively proven – Mere concurrence with the findings of
the Trial Court is insufficient unless supported by a well-reasoned
indepenent justification – As the first appellate court, the High
Court is expected to evaluate the evidence including the medical
evidence, statement of the victim, statements of the witnesses
and the defence’s version with due care – Judgment must reflect
a proper application of mind to crucial evidence – The analysis of
the evidence by the High Court is on the basis of what the Fast
Track Court had recorded and arrived at its findings – The same
has been reproduced in various sub-paras and consequently, the
appeal has been dismissed. – The High Court failed to consider
the evidence on record independently thus, impugned judgment
is set aside – Matter remanded back to the High Court to rehear
the appeal and pass a fresh judgment. [Paras 9-11, 13, 14]
1268                                                    [2024] 12 S.C.R.

                        Supreme Court Reports


                            Case Law Cited
     State of Uttar Pradesh v. Ambarish, Criminal Appeal No 446 of
     2021; Shakuntala Shukla v. State of Uttar Pradesh [2021] 6 SCR
     87 : (2021) 20 SCC 818; State Bank of India v. Ajay Kumar Sood,
     [2022] 17 SCR 507 : (2023) 7 SCC 282 – referred to.

                              List of Acts
     Penal Code, 1860; Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

                           List of Keywords
     Mere concurrence with the evidence is insufficient; Considering
     the evidence independently; Independent reasoning by the High
     Court; Lack of reasoning; Independent application of mind to
     crucial evidence.

                           Case Arising From
     CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No.
     5234 of 2024
     From the Judgment and Order dated 15.05.2024 of the High Court
     of Calcutta in CRA No. 111 of 2019

                        Appearances for Parties
     Ranjan Mukherjee, Anindo Mukherjee, Rameshwar Prasad Goyal,
     Ms. Aayushi, Advs. for the Appellant.
     Srisatya Mohanty, Ms. Astha Sharma, Abhijit Pattanaik, Advs. for
     the Respondent.

               Judgment / Order of the Supreme Court

                               Judgment

     Leave granted.
2.   The appellant herein is aggrieved by the judgment dated 15.05.2024
     passed in C.R.A. 111/2019 by the High Court of Calcutta vis-à-vis
     not only on the merits of the said judgment but also the approach
     of the High Court in considering the Criminal Appeal filed by the
     appellant herein.
[2024] 12 S.C.R.                                                    1269

                Amar Sardar v. The State of West Bengal


3.   The appellant was charged with offences under Sections 376, 511,
     354 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short “IPC”). The learned
     Additional District and Sessions Judge, Fast Track, 3rd Court, Howrah
     by judgment dated 07.01.2019 convicted the appellant herein and
     sentenced him to rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years
     with fine of Rs.2,000/- and in default simple imprisonment for a
     period of one month with regard to Section 354 of the IPC, and
     also, sentenced him to rigorous imprisonment for a period of seven
     years with fine of Rs.10,000/- and in default simple imprisonment for
     a period of three months for the offence punishable under Sections
     376 and 511 of the IPC. The sentences are to run concurrently.
4.   Being aggrieved by the judgment and sentences imposed by the Fast
     Track Court, the appellant herein preferred C.R.A. 111/2019. By the
     impugned judgment, the High Court has dismissed the appellant’s
     appeal and has sustained the judgment of conviction and sentence
     passed by the Fast Track Court. Hence, this appeal.
5.   Learned counsel for the appellant at the outset submitted that on a
     reading of the impugned judgment, it is apparent that the High Court
     has not independently considered the evidence on record. As the
     High Court was considering an appeal against conviction passed
     by the Fast Track Court, the High Court ought to have considered
     the evidence on record independently and passed a judgment one
     way or the other in the appeal; however, instead a reading of the
     judgment would indicate that the High Court has simply reaffirmed
     the conviction and sentence imposed by the Fast Track Court in the
     absence of any independent reasoning given by the High Court.
6.   In this regard, learned counsel for the appellant pointedly drew our
     attention to the various portions of the judgment and contended
     that the judgment is erroneous owing to lack of any reasoning. He
     therefore, submitted that impugned judgment may be set aside and
     relief may be given to the appellant herein.
7.   Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent-State supported the
     impugned judgment and submitted that the High Court was after all
     sustaining the conviction and sentence imposed by the Fast Track
     Court. Therefore the High Court has considered whether the Fast
     Track Court was justified in passing a judgment of conviction and
     imposing the sentences. The High Court has considered the evidence
     on record and thereafter analysis of the evidence of the Fast Track
1270                                                       [2024] 12 S.C.R.

                         Supreme Court Reports


     Court and has rightly dismissed the appeal. There is no merit in this
     appeal and hence, the same may be dismissed.
8.   We have considered the arguments advanced at the bar in light of
     the impugned judgment and perused the material on record. On a
     perusal of the impugned judgment, we note that the judgment has
     been sub-divided into the following sub-topics, namely, the Appeal,
     the Prosecution, the Defence, the Evidence and Analysis of evidence
     which is based on the Fast Track Court’s findings in the matter and
     thereafter the appeal has been dismissed.
9.   While hearing the appeals under Section 374(2) of the Code of
     Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, “CrPC”), the High Court is
     exercising its appellate jurisdiction. There shall be independent
     application of mind in deciding the criminal appeal against conviction.
     It is the duty of an appellate court to independently evaluate the
     evidence presented and determine whether such evidence is credible.
     Even if the evidence is deemed reliable, the High Court must further
     assess whether the prosecution has established its case beyond
     reasonable doubt. The High Court though being an appellate Court
     is akin to a Trial Court, must be convinced beyond all reasonable
     doubt that the prosecution’s case is substantially true and that the
     guilt of the accused has been conclusively proven while considering
     an appeal against a conviction.
10. The necessity of this exercise arises from the fact that a conviction
    curtails the personal liberty of the accused in the incessant future.
    Hence, the High Court must provide clear reasons for accepting the
    evidence on record. Mere concurrence with the findings of the Trial
    Court is insufficient unless supported by a well-reasoned indepenent
    justification. As the first appellate court, the High Court is expected
    to evaluate the evidence including the medical evidence, statement
    of the victim, statements of the witnesses and the defence’s version
    with due care.
11. While the judgment need not be excessively lengthy, it must reflect a
    proper application of mind to crucial evidence. Albeit the High Court
    does not have the advantage to examine the witnesses directly, the
    High Court shall, as an appellate Court, re-assess the facts, evidence
    on record and findings to arrive at a just conclusion in deciding whether
    the Trial Court was justified in convicting the accused or not. We
    are also cognizant of the large pendency of cases bombarding our
[2024] 12 S.C.R.                                                     1271

                Amar Sardar v. The State of West Bengal


     courts. However, the same cannot come in the way of the Court’s
     solemn duty, particularly, when a person’s liberty is at stake.
12. This Court in State of Uttar Pradesh vs. Ambarish, Criminal
    Appeal No 446 of 2021 held that while deciding a criminal appeal
    on merits, the High Court is required to apply its mind to the entirety
    of the case including the evidence on the record before arriving at its
    conclusion. In this regard, we may also refer to the orders passed
    by this Court in Shakuntala Shukla vs. State of Uttar Pradesh
    (2021) 20 SCC 818 and State Bank of India vs. Ajay Kumar Sood
    (2023) 7 SCC 282.
13. No doubt the impugned judgment has neatly sub-titled various
    aspects of the case, but we find that the independent consideration
    of the evidence on record is conspicuous by its absence inasmuch
    as ‘paragraphs 5 to 28’ record the oral evidence and also list the
    exhibits which have been produced in the said case; however,
    the said evidence has not been considered by the High Court
    so as to ascertain whether the Fast Track Court was justified in
    passing a judgment of conviction and sentencing the appellant.
    The analysis of the evidence is on the basis of what the Fast Track
    Court had recorded and arrived at its findings. The same has been
    reproduced in various sub-paras and consequently, the appeal has
    been dismissed.
14. We find that the High Court ought to have considered the evidence
    on record in light of the arguments advanced at the bar and thereafter
    ascertained whether the Fast Track Court was justified in passing the
    judgment of conviction and imposing the sentence. The same being
    absent in the impugned judgment, for that sole reason, we set aside
    the same. We remand the matter to the High Court and restore the
    CRA 111/2019 on the file of the High Court. We request the High
    Court to rehear the appeal and pass a fresh judgment, bearing in
    mind the observations we have made above, in accordance with law.
15. The appeal is allowed and disposed of in the aforesaid terms.
16. Learned counsel for the appellant at this stage submitted that the
    appellant had the benefit of bail before the Fast Track Court as well
    as during the consideration of his appeal before the High Court.
    Therefore, this Court may pass an order of suspension of sentence
    pending disposal of the appeal by the High Court. We do not think at
1272                                                            [2024] 12 S.C.R.

                             Supreme Court Reports


     this stage, we could consider the said contention, instead, we reserve
     liberty to the appellant herein to make an appropriate application
     seeking suspension of sentence, if so advised.
17. It is needless to observe that if such an application is made, the same
    shall be considered as expeditiously as possible and in accordance
    with law.
18. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.

     Result of the case: Appeal Allowed.



     †
         Headnotes prepared by: Gaurav Upadhyay, Hony. Associate Editor
                                 (Verified by: Abhinav Mukerji, Sr. Adv.)